1.

Catalina, a Spanish national, and Conrado, a Filipino, set up a counterfeiting factory in Shenzhen,
China. Their factory produces fake United States (US) Dollars, Japanese Yen, and Philippine Pesos,
which are distributed only in Europe and the US. While vacationing in Panglao, Bohol, they were
arrested by a special task force of the National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant of
arrest issued by a Philippine court for Counterfeiting and Forgery. Both Catalina and Conrado
claimed that the Philippine court does not have jurisdiction over them since they did not commit any
criminal act within the territory of the Philippines. Catalina also argued that the Philippine court does
not have jurisdiction over her person as she is a Spanish citizen. Are Catalina and Conrado correct?
Discuss.
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
No, Catalina and Conrado are not correct. The Philippine court has jurisdiction over them for the
following reasons:
First, the Philippine court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, which is counterfeiting
and forgery. These are crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which
applies to all persons who commit acts punishable by it within Philippine territory, as well as to those
who commit such acts outside of its territory against Philippine currency. Therefore, even if Catalina
and Conrado did not produce or distribute the fake Philippine Pesos within the Philippines, they are
still liable for counterfeiting and forgery under Philippine law.
Second, the Philippine court has jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed.
According to Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal laws have a generally prospective
application, except when they favor the accused. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as
when the acts are committed by any public officer or employee in the exercise of his functions; or
when the acts affect the life, liberty or property of a Filipino citizen. In this case, Catalina and
Conrado’s counterfeiting and forgery affect the property of Filipino citizens who use Philippine
currency as a medium of exchange. Moreover, their acts also affect the national interest and security
of the Philippines, as they undermine the integrity and stability of its currency. Therefore, the
Philippine court has jurisdiction over their acts regardless of where they were committed.
Third, the Philippine court has jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Jurisdiction over the
person is acquired by the voluntary appearance of a party in court and his submission to its authority,
or it is acquired by the coercive power of legal process exerted over the person of the defendant. In
this case, Catalina and Conrado were arrested by a special task force of the National Bureau of
Investigation on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by a Philippine court. This means that they
were subjected to the coercive power of legal process, which gave the Philippine court jurisdiction
over their person. Catalina’s citizenship is irrelevant to this issue, as she is bound by Philippine laws
while she is within its territory.

2. When Joey came home from work, he saw a man and a woman making love in the main bedroom.
Enraged at the thought that his wife, Abby, was unfaithful to him, he shot the man and woman to
death. However, the couple turned out to be the driver and kasambahay. The families of the
decedents filed a case of double Homicide against Joey. Joey invoked the defense of mistake of fact,
arguing that he thought the persons he shot were his wife and her lover. Thus, he is entitled to the
privilege or benefit of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which entitles a legally married person,
who having surprised his or her spouse in the act of sexual intercourse, kills or seriously injures the
same, to the penalty of destierro for being an exceptional circumstance. Is Joey correct in invoking
the defense of mistake of fact? Discuss.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Joey's invocation of the defense of mistake of fact in this scenario is not valid. The defense of
mistake of fact can be used to argue that the accused had an honest and reasonable belief in certain
facts that, if true, would make their actions legal. However, in order for this defense to be applicable,
certain elements must be met.
Firstly, the mistake of fact must be genuine. In this case, Joey argues that he mistakenly believed the
individuals he shot were his wife and her lover. However, this belief may not be seen as reasonable,
as it was later revealed that they were actually the driver and kasambahay. Joey did not have a valid
reason to believe that his wife would be engaging in sexual activity with her employees.
Secondly, the mistake of fact must be reasonable. It is expected that a person exercises a certain
degree of care and caution in determining the facts before taking any extreme actions such as
shooting someone. In this case, Joey did not exercise the necessary care to confirm the identities of
the individuals involved before resorting to violence. He acted impulsively and without proper
justification.
Moreover, even if Joey genuinely believed the individuals were his wife and her lover, it does not
excuse the fact that he took the law into his own hands and committed a crime by shooting and
killing them. The defense of mistake of fact typically applies to situations where the accused attempts
to prevent a crime from occurring, and not after the crime has already taken place.
Therefore, Joey's invocation of the defense of mistake of fact is unlikely to be successful in this
scenario. His actions in response to his mistaken belief still resulted in the death of two individuals,
which would still be considered a crime under the law.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER :
No, Joey is not correct in invoking the defense of mistake of fact. The defense of mistake of fact is
applicable when the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be.
However, in this case, even if Joey had killed his wife and her lover, he would still be liable for
homicide or murder, as Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code does not exempt him from criminal
liability but only provides for a lower penalty of destierro.Therefore, Joey’s mistake of fact does not
negate his criminal intent or malice, which is an essential element of homicide or murder.
Moreover, Joey’s mistake of fact was not reasonable or honest, as he did not verify the identity of the
persons he shot before killing them. He acted rashly and impulsively, without regard for the
consequences of his actions. Thus, he cannot claim that he acted in good faith or without negligence.
Therefore, Joey’s defense of mistake of fact is not valid and he is guilty of double homicide or
murder.

Domeng, Dado, and Dario committed the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with
Homicide.
In the given scenario, Domeng, Dado, and Dario initially engaged in kidnapping and serious illegal
detention of 9-year-old Rosanna. They demanded P2 million as ransom money from Rosanna's
family, which makes it a case of kidnapping for ransom.
However, the situation escalated when they killed Rosanna while she was in captivity. This act
transforms the crime into a more severe form, often termed as "Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention with Homicide" in legal parlance.
The homicide committed during the period of detention aggravates the crime and makes it a
composite offense. Therefore, all three individuals—Domeng, Dado, and Dario—are liable for this
composite crime.
The act of demanding ransom establishes the motive, and the subsequent killing of the victim while
in captivity fulfills the criteria for the composite crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
with Homicide.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER :
Domeng, Dado, and Dario committed the crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide.
According to Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for kidnapping for ransom is death,
regardless of whether any of the circumstances enumerated in the article are present or not.
Moreover, when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, the maximum penalty
shall be imposed. Therefore, Domeng, Dado, and Dario are liable for the death penalty for
kidnapping Rosanna for ransom and killing her while she was in their custody.
Their conspiracy to commit the crime is evident from their concerted acts of kidnapping, detaining,
and killing Rosanna, as well as demanding ransom from her family.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.
When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Hence, Domeng, Dado, and Dario are
equally responsible for the crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide.

2023 BAR QUESTION: CRIMINAL LAW

4. During a concert at nighttime held in the Cultural Center of the Philippines, Chito physically
assaulted another attendee, Butch. Chito slapped Butch several times in front of the President of the
Philippines, who was also present. Are there any modifying circumstances affecting the criminal
liability of Chito? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
Yes, According to the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, there are two kinds of modifying
circumstances that affect the criminal liability of an offender: aggravating and mitigating.
Aggravating circumstances are those that increase the penalty or make the crime more serious, while
mitigating circumstances are those that decrease the penalty or make the crime less serious.
In the case of Chito, who physically assaulted Butch during a concert at nighttime held in the
Cultural Center of the Philippines, there are two possible aggravating circumstances that may apply:
Nighttime. This is when the offense is committed in the nighttime, or from sunset to sunrise, and the
offender took advantage of the darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime. However, this
circumstance will not apply if it was not specially sought by the offender, or if it was coincidental or
incidental.
In this case, it is not clear whether Chito deliberately chose to assault Butch at nighttime or not, so
this circumstance may or may not apply depending on the evidence.
In contempt of or with insult to public authorities. This is when the offense is committed in the
presence of a public authority who is engaged in the exercise of his functions, and the offender
knows this fact and shows disrespect or insult to him.
A public authority is a person who has the power to govern and execute laws, such as a president,
governor, mayor, judge, etc. In this case, since Chito slapped Butch several times in front of the
President of the Philippines, who was also present at the concert, this circumstance may apply if it
can be proven that Chito knew that the President was there and that he intended to show contempt or
insult to him.
There are no mitigating circumstances that appear to apply in this case, unless Chito can invoke any
of the following:
Sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. This
is when the offender acted upon an impulse so powerful as to produce passion or obfuscation.
However, this circumstance will not apply if the provocation was not sufficient, or if it did not
immediately precede the act, or if it came from a third person. In this case, it is not clear whether
Butch provoked or threatened Chito in any way before he was assaulted by him, so this circumstance
may or may not apply depending on the evidence.
Passion or obfuscation. This is when the offender acted under the impulse of passion or obfuscation
caused by lawful sentiments. However, this circumstance will not apply if there was no adequate
cause for such passion or obfuscation, or if it arose from an illegitimate relationship, or if it persisted
after the passage of time. In this case, it is not clear what motivated Chito to assault Butch, so this
circumstance may or may not apply depending on the evidence.
Any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above. This is when there is any
other factor that may reduce the degree of malice or culpability of the offender. In this case, there is
no apparent circumstance that may fall under this category.
Therefore, based on the given facts, Chito may be liable for physical injuries with two aggravating
circumstances (nighttime and in contempt of or with insult to public authorities), unless he can prove
any mitigating circumstance (sufficient provocation or threat, passion or obfuscation, or any other
analogous circumstance) that may offset or diminish his liability.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Yes, In this scenario, modifying circumstances affecting the criminal liability of Chito may exist
subject to the jurisdictional classification and interpretation of the law. Generally, factors that could
influence culpability in a situation of assault include public humiliation, degree of provocation,
personal damage sustained, intent, or premeditation.
The fact that the assault occurred in a public place, in front of many people - including the President,
may function as an aggravating circumstance, potentially increasing Chito's legal culpability.
However, specific factors, such as whether Butch provoked Chito, or Chito acted under threat,
duress, or intense emotion, could potentially mitigate Chito's liability under certain legal frameworks.

Michael was driving along the highway when he executed a prohibited U-Turn. Dyords, a police
officer, accosted Michael for the traffic violation. A verbal argument ensued between them.
Dyords suddenly drew his service firearm, and pointed it at Michael. Dyords ordered Michael to
alight from his car, which the latter obeyed. Dyords then handcuffed Michael and pinned his
head and body against the pavement until he could no longer breathe. Michael died. Charged
with Homicide, Dyords interposed the exempting circumstance of accident as a defense.
If you were the judge, how would you resolve Dyords’ defense? Explain briefly. (5 points)
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
I would reject Dyords' defense of accident as an exempting circumstance. For accident to be
properly appreciated as an exempting circumstance, the following requisites must concur: that
the accused was performing a lawful act with due care; that the injury is caused by mere
accident; and that there was no fault or intent on his part to cause the injury.
In this case, none of these requisites are present. Dyords was not performing a lawful act when
he drew his service firearm and pointed it at Michael, who was unarmed and did not pose any
threat to him.
Dyords also did not act with due care when he handcuffed Michael and pinned his head and body
against the pavement, which was a disproportionate and excessive use of force.
Dyords clearly had fault and intent to cause injury to Michael, as evidenced by his verbal
argument and violent actions. Therefore, Dyords cannot invoke accident as an exempting
circumstance to escape criminal liability for homicide.
15. Filed before the House of Representatives were Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice
Urduja for corruption, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution. After a
heavily publicized trial, the Senate, sitting as Impeachment Court, rendered a judgment removing
Urduja from her position, with the additional penalty of disqualification to hold any other public
office. However, during the pendency of the criminal, administrative, and civil cases subsequently
filed against her, Urduja died due to health complications. The heirs of Urduja filed a petition before
the Supreme Court for the release of her accrued retirement benefits and other gratuities as a member
of the Judiciary. Senate President Francisco opined that the petition of the heirs of Urduja should be
denied in view of hèr removal by impeachment. Is Franciscó correct? Decide with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Francisco is not correct. The petition of the heirs of Urduja should be granted, as the removal by
impeachment does not affect the entitlement of the impeached official to retirement benefits and
other gratuities, unless there is a judicial conviction for any liability arising from the grounds for
impeachment. This is based on the recent Supreme Court decision in Re: Letter of Mrs. Ma. Cristina
Roco Corona Requesting the Grant of Retirement and Other Benefits to the Late Former Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona and Her Claim for Survivorship Pension as His Wife Under Republic Act
No. 99461, which involved a similar situation.
The Supreme Court held that impeachment is a political process that does not result in the forfeiture
of the constitutional rights to life, liberty, or property of the impeached official. A separate
determination of liability under the courts of law is necessary to withhold such rights. The Court also
ruled that the impeached official may be considered involuntarily retired from public service due to
the peculiar circumstances surrounding his or her removal by impeachment. Thus, the Court granted
the petition of Mrs. Corona and ordered the release of her late husband’s retirement benefits and
survivorship pension.
In the case of Urduja, since she died during the pendency of the criminal, administrative, and civil
cases filed against her, there was no judicial conviction for any liability that would justify the denial
of her retirement benefits and other gratuities. Therefore, her heirs are entitled to claim them as a
matter of right under Republic Act No. 9102, which is the law on retirement benefits for justices of
the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

Juan, acting as president of Maharlika Car Dealers Incorporated (MCDI), entered into a contract of
long-term lease with Antonino over a large commercial property along Pasong Tamo Avenue owned
by the latter. When Antonino received a better offer for the commercial property, and having learned
that MCDI was not formally incorporated with the Securities and Exchange Commission, he sought
to have the contract of lease nullified on the ground that it was void for lack of the essential element
of consent, since the lessee was not a juridical person with capacity to contract. May Juan, acting on
behalf of MCDI, which is in the process of incorporation, legally insist on the enforceability and
binding effect of the contract of lease as against Antonino? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
Yes, Juan, acting on behalf of MCDI, which is in the process of incorporation, may legally insist on
the enforceability and binding effect of the contract of lease as against Antonino.
According to the Revised Corporation Code of the Philippines, Section 18, Registration,
Incorporation and Commencement of Corporate Existence, “A corporation shall commence to have
corporate existence and juridical personality and shall be deemed incorporated from the date the
Securities and Exchange Commission issues a certificate of incorporation under its official seal; and
thereupon the incorporators, stockholders/members and their successors shall constitute a body
politic and corporate under the name stated in the articles of incorporation for the period of time
mentioned therein, unless said period is extended or the corporation is sooner dissolved in
accordance with law.”
However, Section 19, De Facto Corporations, provides that “The due incorporation of any
corporation claiming in good faith to be a corporation under this Code, and its right to exercise
corporate powers, shall not be inquired into collaterally in any private suit to which such corporation
may be a party. Such inquiry may be made by the Solicitor General in a quo warranto proceeding.”
Furthermore, Section 20, Corporation by Estoppel, states that “All persons who assume to act as a
corporation knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all
debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result thereof: Provided, however, That when
any such ostensible corporation is sued on any transaction entered by it as a corporation or on any
tort committed by it as such, it shall not be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate
personality. On who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as such, cannot resist
performance thereof on the ground that there was in fact no corporation.”
Therefore, based on these provisions, MCDI may be considered as a de facto corporation or a
corporation by estoppel. As such, it has the right to exercise corporate powers and enter into
contracts as a corporation. Antonino cannot nullify the contract of lease on the ground that MCDI
was not formally incorporated with the SEC.
He is estopped from denying the existence of MCDI as a corporation since he entered into a contract
with it as such. He is bound by the terms and conditions of the contract of lease and cannot rescind it
without just cause. Juan may invoke the principle of good faith and equity to protect the rights and
interests of MCDI as a lessee.

Datu Commercial Corporation (DCC), a publicly-listed company with the Philippine Stock
Exchange, incorporated Kidlat Close Corporation (KCC), investing into 91 % of its outstanding
capital. The chairman, president, and executive vice-president of DCC are incorporators of KCC,
each holding 3 % of the outstanding capital stock. The articles of incorporation of KCC provided: 1)
a limit on the number of shareholders, which shall never exceed five; 2) a right of first refusal; and 3)
a prohibition on the shares from being listed or being publicly offered. Pending the issuance by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the Certificate of Registration, the vice-president of
KCC entered into a long-term contract of lease on behalf of KCC, which was declared therein as
undergoing incorporation with the SEC. Is DCC qualified to be an incorporator of KCC although it is
a juridical entity? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
No, DCC is not qualified to be an incorporator of KCC although it is a juridical entity. According to
the Revised Corporation Code of the Philippines, Section 10, Number and Qualifications of
Incorporators, "Only natural persons shall be allowed to form and organize a corporation, unless
otherwise provided under special laws."
A juridical entity, such as a corporation, is not a natural person and therefore cannot be an
incorporator of another corporation. Furthermore, Section 11, Corporate Term, states that "A
corporation shall exist for a period not exceeding fifty (50) years from the date of incorporation
unless sooner dissolved or unless said period is extended."
A juridical entity may not have a perpetual existence and may cease to exist before the corporation it
incorporated. This would create legal complications and uncertainties for the corporation and its
shareholders. Therefore, only natural persons can be incorporators of a corporation in the Philippines.

Procopio owns the controlling interest in Ginto Bank (GB). Due to the promising potential of lending
with real estate collateral, the bank is primarily focused on said transactions. After the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) conducted its examination of GB, the bank was placed under receivership
due to illiquidity, as well as unsafe and unsound banking practices. Procopio contends that the
actions of the BSP were arbitrary and denied GB its right to due process. He said that GB should
have been given due notice and prior hearing, where the bank could have explained the reasons for
its illiquidity. Is the contention of Procopio correct? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
The contention of Procopio is not correct. The BSP has the authority to place a bank under
receivership without prior notice and hearing if it finds that the bank is in a state of continuing
inability or unwillingness to maintain a condition of liquidity deemed adequate to protect the interest
of depositors and creditors, or that the bank is conducting business in an unsafe or unsound manner.
This is based on the principle of summary action, which is necessary to prevent further dissipation of
the bank’s assets and to protect the public interest. The BSP’s action is not arbitrary, but based on the
report of its supervising or examining department, which conducts regular and special examinations
of banks to assess their financial condition and compliance with banking laws and regulations.

Atty. Diwa is the lawyer of Tala in a criminal case for Estafa before the Regional Trial Court of
Manila. After one of their hearings, Tala gave Atty. Diwa P10 million for safekeeping, which Tala
admitted in confidence that it was part of the proceeds of her swindling activities. The husband of
Atty. Diwa found out about this and reported it to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). The
AMLC demanded Atty. Diwa to disclose the details of her transaction with Tala, but she refused.
Can Atty. Diwa validly refuse to report her transaction with Tala? Discuss your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
Atty. Diwa may validly refuse to report her transaction with Tala based on the attorney-client
privilege rule.
According to the Philippine law on attorney-client privilege, an attorney cannot, without the client's
consent, testify or be examined as to any communication made by the client to them or as to their
advice given on such a communication in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment.
The purpose of this rule is to encourage clients to make full disclosure to their attorneys and to place
unrestricted confidence in them in matters affecting their rights and obligations.
However, there are exceptions to the attorney-client privilege rule, such as when the services or
advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit
what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud.
In this case, Atty. Diwa may be compelled to reveal the communication or information that relates to
Tala's money laundering activities, which is a crime under the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001.
The AMLC may also freeze, inquire into, or examine any monetary instrument or property that is in
any way related to money laundering offenses.
Therefore, Atty. Diwa's refusal to report her transaction with Tala may be justified by the attorney-
client privilege rule, but it may also expose her to possible sanctions or penalties under the Anti-
Money Laundering Act of 2001 if she is found to be aiding or abetting Tala's unlawful activities.
The BSP’s action also does not deny the bank its right to due process, as the bank can still challenge
the receivership order before the courts and present evidence to prove that it is solvent and viable.
Therefore, Procopio’s argument is without merit.

2. Timoteo recently lost his job as a security guard at Kabayan Corporation. He blamed his
termination on his former co-worker, Tales, because the latter was allegedly badmouthing him at
their workplace. One day, Timoteo went back to the company premises to retrieve his things. When
he saw Tales, a heated exchange ensued between the two. Timoteo then pulled out his gun and shot
Tales in the neck. When the latter dropped to the ground, Timoteo approached him, kneeled on top of
him, and shot him in the head, instantly killing Tales. Timoteo tried to escape but his other former
co-workers caught him. Timoteo was then charged with Murder, with treachery as a qualifying
circumstance. Is Timoteo guilty of Murder? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
Timoteo is guilty of murder, with treachery as a qualifying circumstance. According to Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code, murder is the unlawful killing of any person with any of the following
circumstances:
*With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing
means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
*In consideration of a price, reward, or promise;
*By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or
assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use
of any other means involving great waste and ruin;
*On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity;
*With evident premeditation;
*With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or
scoffing at his person or corpse.
Treachery is defined as the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no
opportunity to defend or retaliate The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an
unsuspecting victim Treachery is present when the following elements are proven:
The employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or
retaliate; and, That said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
In this case, Timoteo shot Tales in the neck without warning, giving him no chance to defend
himself. He then approached him and shot him in the head to ensure his death. These acts show that
Timoteo deliberately and consciously adopted a mode of attack that insured its execution without risk
to himself arising from the defense which Tales might make. Therefore, treachery is present and
qualifies the killing as murder.
Rita asked Belen, a 14-year-old girl, to meet with her at DuoMart Supermarket for an errand. Upon
meeting at the supermarket, however, Rita brought Belen to the nearby hotel and met Elmer. Rita left
the other two in the room, where Elmer had carnal knowledge of Belen. When Rita returned, Elmer
paid her P 2,200, of which P700 was then given to Belen. Rita warned Belen not to tell anyone about
what happened. Before they could all leave the hotel room, the police barged in and arrested Elmer
and Rita. During the investigation, Rita argued that she did not force Belen to have sex with Elmer
for a fee. Belen herself admitted that she consented to have sexual intercourse with Elmer. What
crime, if any, is Rita liable for? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
Rita is liable for the crime of corruption of minors under Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 92. Corruption of minors is defined as the act of promoting or
facilitating the prostitution or corruption of persons underage to satisfy the lust of another.
The elements of the crime are:
*The offender promotes or facilitates the prostitution or corruption of persons underage;
*It is to satisfy the lust of another.
In this case, Rita promoted or facilitated the prostitution or corruption of Belen, who was only 14
years old and thus underage. Rita brought Belen to the hotel and left her with Elmer, who had carnal
knowledge of Belen. Rita also received payment from Elmer and gave a portion to Belen. Rita’s act
was clearly intended to satisfy the lust of Elmer, who was a client or customer of Rita. Therefore,
Rita committed the crime of corruption of minors.
The consent of Belen to have sexual intercourse with Elmer is irrelevant and immaterial in this case.
The law protects minors from sexual exploitation and abuse, regardless of their consent or
willingness. The law presumes that minors are incapable of giving valid consent to such acts, and
that they are victims of coercion, deception, or manipulation by adults. Thus, Rita cannot invoke
Belen’s consent as a defense or justification for her crime.

16. Soccoro owns and leases an apartment building where Rami is one of the tenants under a two-
year lease. The first year went by with no issue as Rami paid his rent on time, if not earlier. However,
when he lost his job after the pandemic, Rami failed to pay his rent beginning the third month of the
second year of the lease. Soccoro repeatedly demanded payment from him but to no avail. Thus, she
filed a case for ejectment against Rami. When Rami received the summons, he locked himself in the
apartment unit. This infuriated Soccoro so much so that she padlocked the apartment unit and cut off
its utilities when Rami momentarily left to go to the supermarket. What crime, if any, did Soccoro
commit? Discuss.
SUGGESTED ANSWER :
Soccoro committed the crime of grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code. Grave
coercion is defined as the act of preventing another, by means of violence, threats or intimidation,
from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelling him to do something against his will,
whether it be right or wrong.
In this case, Soccoro prevented Rami from entering his apartment unit and using its utilities by
padlocking the door and cutting off the services. This was done with violence and intimidation, as
Soccoro acted out of anger and frustration. Soccoro had no legal right to do so, as the proper remedy
for Rami’s failure to pay rent was to file a case for ejectment, which she already did.
Soccoro’s act of padlocking the unit and cutting off the utilities was illegal, felonious and unlawful,
as it violated Rami’s right to peaceful possession and enjoyment of the leased premises. Soccoro’s
act also constituted an undue interference in Rami’s personal liberty, as it deprived him of his
freedom to enter and leave his dwelling place at his own will. Therefore, Soccoro is liable for grave
coercion and should be punished accordingly.